-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 423
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Fixed slat angle control and slat angle reporting issues for VB in equivalent layer window model #6191
Conversation
The defect has been fixed and ready for review. |
Yikes. I tried resolving the conflict with the online editor. Looks like it was trying to fix our whitespace for us, inserting spaces. It looks like the conflict is just that two branches added some using statements. No big deal. I can fix that and push this back up. I'll make sure it is updated with develop also. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Nigusse This looks pretty good. This will need a transition rule to change the user's angle input right? Or was it just being misinterpreted and we need to leave their input alone?
Other minor comments that will get cleaned up if transition rules or other code changes are needed.
// issue #5750, commented out because it does not block the solar beam | ||
//RAT = L.S * std::cos( OMEGA_DEG ) / L.W; | ||
//// limit upward slat angle to horiz = max visibility | ||
//VB_CriticalSlatAngle = max( 0.0, RadiansToDeg * std::asin( RAT ) - OMEGA_DEG ); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should just clean these out. With our version control we can always look back and see where the file was modified, and with good commit messages we can see why.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Agree. I will clean that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Cleaned commented code lines.
@@ -9259,16 +9267,16 @@ namespace WindowEquivalentLayer { | |||
ProfAngVer = 0.0; | |||
ConstrNum = Surface( SurfNum ).Construction; | |||
EQLNum = Construct( Surface( SurfNum ).Construction ).EQLConsPtr; | |||
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Stray whitespace
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Removed white space.
\default 45 | ||
\note Slat angle is +ve if the tip of the slat front face is tilted upward, else | ||
\note the slat angle is -ve if the tip of the slat front face is tilted downward. | ||
\note The slat angle varies between -90 to +90. The default value is 45 degrees. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK. So this needs a transition rule to subtract 90 degrees from the original input?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Probably Slat Angle > 0 should remain the same but if greater than 90 then 90 minus Slat Angle should apply. I will double check this transition rule.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added transition rule (both *.md and *.f90 files).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great. I'll check it out once you get the changes pushed up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I run into merge conflicts and had to commit twice.
…Plus into 147546163_Issue#5750
…ules (Issue 5750)
ObjectName='WindowMaterial:Blind:EquivalentLayer' | ||
CALL GetNewObjectDefInIDD(ObjectName,NwNumArgs,NwAorN,NwReqFld,NwObjMinFlds,NwFldNames,NwFldDefaults,NwFldUnits) | ||
OutArgs(1:24) = InArgs(1:24) | ||
IF (inArgs(6) >= '90') THEN |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Umm. Does this actually compile and run?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nope. I never run transition codes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I will push a corrected version.
@Nigusse Hey, thanks for going ahead and adding the transition rule. I was happy to do it, but thanks for forging ahead on it. I am just wanting to verify the transition. If before it went from 0-180, and now it goes from -90 to 90, why aren't you just shifting the value down by 90? Maybe I don't fully grok the way in which the original code was broken, so I don't see why you are only transitioning this way. If it is right, can you can clarify it one more time, and if all is good we'll merge this in. (I'll test the transition locally now.) |
Who added the equivalent layer model? If we change the equivalent layer blinds to be -90 to +90 while regular blinds are 0 to 180 that seems a bit confusing. |
@Myoldmopar @mjwitte The original equivalent window (ASHWAT) model uses the +90/-90 convention while EPlus uses 0 - 180 convention. So, the equivalent window blind model is based on +90/-90 convention but the idd was wrong (adopted Eplu's convention). @mjwitte I added the equivalent window model to Eplus but it was added in hasty situation when the original contractors did not deliver. |
@Myoldmopar Just to clarify the slat angle convention in equivalent window model did not change only the idd changed to match the model in the code. So, from functional point of view the model was already using +90/-90 convention. |
OK, so do we really not have an example file for this object? I find several |
Issue #5750
Pull request overview
This is a fix for defects in Equivalent Layer Window Model Venetian Blind (VB) slat angle control and slat angle reporting issues. Now the slat angle control works as expected and the slat angle are reported for the three control modes. Also fixed the slat angle calculation for BlockBeamSolar control mode. Diffs are expected for BlockBeamSolar Slat Angle Control. Also swapped vertical and horizontal profile angles for equivalent layer window model.
Work Checklist
Add to this list or remove from it as applicable. This is a simple templated set of guidelines.
Review Checklist
This will not be exhaustively relevant to every PR.